Election 2008: So is Barrack Obama finished?

sevenoneeighty

I'm not sure who I am voting for in 2008 yet. Every time I look at the news, it seems like the election is over - at least for the Democrats - and everyone has decided Hillary has won the nomination already.

Is this true? If so does this also mean Edwards is done also?

Remember in early 2004 when Howard Dean was the presumed Democratic nominee? Different circumstances, but isn't it a little too early to be declaring a winner? I must admit being frustrated by this guy and wanting him to step forward but maybe it is just the way the press is covering the "election" so far. But I still feel like I'm not seeing him distinguish himself on current issues - besides the Iraq vote ( this is big, but not the only issue).

I like Obama, but I'm still undecided. I'm ready for change and getting someone new in there, but I am feeling like he only has the same 5 minute "hope" message. Hope is great and this plays great on commercials, but I need some more from him...

alafairnadia

this sounds totally awful, but I want a candidate who can win the actual election, not the nomination. and I don't know who that is. I doubt it's either Obama or Clinton, though. I'd love it if the two of them could cut through the crap and be on the same ticket, but they still wouldn't win. sucks.

lilbangladesh

The media present the election as over because they are lazy. Plus, it gives them more "credibility" if they can handicap the race. As far as I am concerned, the race for the Democratic nomination is wide open, and it should be. With such an array of weak Republican candidates, I think we can afford to vote our hearts in the primary so long as we support whoever wins the nomination.

Obama seems a bit green to me too, but my dad is an enthusiastic supporter.

"Well, he's a Harvard man! [Note: This trumps all other prejudices in my dad's book.] He'll be able to learn on the job! He's smart!!!"

"Umm... Dad. Bush went to Yale. An Ivy League education doesn't necessarily mean anything."

"Well, that's Yale!"

At that point, I neglected to mention that my first boyfriend in college was a Harvard grad, a man so dumb that the only reason why he got through the first year of law school was because I, a college freshman, would skim his textbooks and write his papers for him. (And I did it for DQ Blizzerts, which shows how bright *I* was!)

This little anecdote, of course, is no reflection on Obama, who is a pretty bright guy. The question is, is that enough?

sevenoneeighty

alafairnadia wrote: this sounds totally awful, but I want a candidate who can win the actual election, not the nomination. and I don't know who that is. I doubt it's either Obama or Clinton, though. I'd love it if the two of them could cut through the crap and be on the same ticket, but they still wouldn't win. sucks.

So does this mean you think only Edwards or a Republican candidate will win in 2008? Romney or Giuliani?

alafairnadia

SevenOneEighty wrote: [quote=alafairnadia]this sounds totally awful, but I want a candidate who can win the actual election, not the nomination. and I don't know who that is. I doubt it's either Obama or Clinton, though. I'd love it if the two of them could cut through the crap and be on the same ticket, but they still wouldn't win. sucks.

So does this mean you think only Edwards or a Republican candidate will win in 2008? Romney or Giuliani?

pessimistic as it sounds, I think a white male is going to win it. so, yeah. that's what I'm saying. I hope I'm wrong.

drano

Obama, hell. What the world wants to know is if Duncan Hunter still has a shot!

lilbangladesh

I don't share your pessimism, Alfy. I think this year it's the Democrat's race to lose. I know a lot of former Republicans who will vote for anyone BUT a Republican because they are so fed up with the Republican party. Heck, an entire TOWN in New Jersey switched their political affiliation from Republican to Democrat.

That said, we probably shouldn't underestimate the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

sevenoneeighty

alafairnadia wrote: [quote=SevenOneEighty][quote=alafairnadia]this sounds totally awful, but I want a candidate who can win the actual election, not the nomination. and I don't know who that is. I doubt it's either Obama or Clinton, though. I'd love it if the two of them could cut through the crap and be on the same ticket, but they still wouldn't win. sucks.

So does this mean you think only Edwards or a Republican candidate will win in 2008? Romney or Giuliani?

pessimistic as it sounds, I think a white male is going to win it. so, yeah. that's what I'm saying. I hope I'm wrong.

Damn.

Hey, Argentina just elected their first female president...maybe there is hope. It is interesting how we just cannot get out of that mindset as a nation though. SO many people feel the way you do but it is, as usual, it's all about the single woman's vote in the next election...

sprite

lilbangladesh wrote:
At that point, I neglected to mention that my first boyfriend in college was a Harvard grad, a man so dumb that the only reason why he got through the first year of law school was because I, a college freshman, would skim his textbooks and write his papers for him.

I don't know; he was smart enough to get you to write the papers for him, no? A man who understands the power of outsourcing is sure to be successful.

As for the candidate question, I was initially skeptical about Clinton's chances of winning, but now I'm not so sure. Her chances seem better to me than Edwards's, for instance.

I just googled these polling numbers. Giuliani comes out ahead of Clinton by 2 percentage points, but otherwise she's tied or ahead of the Reps. (Oddly, the only Dem who comes ahead of Giuliani is Obama, even though Obama does less well against other Reps than Clinton.) If Clinton gets Obama to be her running mate, that could push her to victory.

OTOH, this is just an estimate of the popular vote. It's the electoral votes that count.

witch-king

without a huge clinton gaffe, obama is toast this time around. clinton is a better 'politician' at this point and obama's effort to rise above politics is admiriable but not a winning strategy.

carnivore

Well, Oprah's endorsement will really help, because each Democrat who supports him because of Oprah would likely otherwise be a Hillary supporter. And he's in the lead in a poll for the first time. And he's leading Hillary by a decent margin in Iowa. Check out this video.

He's definitely still in it.

lilbangladesh

I wouldn't vote for someone just because Oprah said to, but then my dad is voting for Obama because he went to Harvard. So there ya go.

carnivore

I wouldn't suggest that anyone vote for anyone because anyone said to, but Oprah has a lot of influence, and the fact is that many people do lots of things because she says to, so her endorsement could be significant. She also said that she's going to actively campaign for Obama.

quijibo

Oprah's endorsement is huge.
did you catch the NYT op-ed for an Obama-Cheney ticket?

witch-king

Carnivore wrote: Well, Oprah's endorsement will really help, because each Democrat who supports him because of Oprah would likely otherwise be a Hillary supporter. And he's in the lead in a poll for the first time. And he's leading Hillary by a decent margin in Iowa.

you're correct to point out that national polls don't necessarily reflect polls in the early primary states. it would be crucial for obama to win one of those primaries. i suspect that some of the support for hillary is based on a feeling that she can win the general election. an obama win early might raise questions in the minds of those voters.

re oprah: people might buy the books she recommends, but will they buy the politician she recommends? her endorsement doesn't hurt, but i don't know how much it will help.

leeho

This is an interesting article from Pew about the Oprah endorsement.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=357

witch-king

LeeHo. interesting article and site. here's another one, a national poll comparing candidates. what's surprising is that clinton leads obama on the 'war' issue, given that it is a major theme of his campaign that he was right on iraq and she wasn't.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1203

carnivore

LeeHo wrote: This is an interesting article from Pew about the Oprah endorsement.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=357

A few points:
1) They don't talk about the details of the population polled, but if this poll was of all voters, rather than all Democratic voters (the only ones who matter for the primary), I would bet that the number of people less likely to vote for a candidate after Oprah's endorsement is inflated.
2) This doesn't take into account Oprah's possible impact on getting out the vote. I think it's very likely that Oprah might push some relatively apolitical people to get out and vote for Obama, or at least motivate people who support him to vote when they might not otherwise have bothered. Are the people who are less likely to support a candidate she endorsed going to get and vote for the other candidate based on the fact that she endorsed Obama? Unlikely.
3) When was the poll conducted? As Oprah actively campaigns for Obama, the number of people who have heard of her support will only increase.

I think this poll underestimates the positive effect of Oprah's endorsement.

carnivore

witch-king wrote: LeeHo. interesting article and site. here's another one, a national poll comparing candidates. what's surprising is that clinton leads obama on the 'war' issue, given that it is a major theme of his campaign that he was right on iraq and she wasn't.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1203

Especially puzzling since she voted in favor of the war in the first place while he voted against it. And I don't buy her explanation that she didn't think Bush was going to actually attack Iraq once the Senate authorized the use of force. I'd still vote for her over any Republican currently running if she turns out to be the nominee, but Obama is such a better candidate.

leeho

It looks like the poll was conducted 9/11-14.

I agree with you about the importance of Oprah's endorsement and think she is different than most other celebrities. People think of her more like a close friend than a celebrity, I think. My sister, a mother of two, who moved to Floriduh, watches her religiously. She has all of the Oprah book club books and reads them. She sees the stuff they give away on the show and she buys a lot of it. She is an Opraphile! That kind of reach and influence isn't conducive to a lot of celebrities. So, you are right.

I still think that article is an interesting glimpse into the minds of the American voter and I wanna read the one with-king posted as well.

lilbangladesh

quijibo wrote: Oprah's endorsement is huge.
did you catch the NYT op-ed for an Obama-Cheney ticket?

Oh God, no! While I like Obama's positions, though I find him to be a bit green, Cheney is the evil brains behind the Bush administration.

No mas!

sevenoneeighty

Obama making a stronger showing:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/11/obama_ahead_in.html

Obama ahead in new Iowa poll
By Scott Helman, Political Reporter November 19, 07 06:09 PM

No wonder Hillary Clinton is redoubling her efforts in Iowa.

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll of likely Democratic caucus-goers has Barack Obama leading the primary field with 30 percent, compared with Clinton at 26 percent and John Edwards at 22 percent. Obama's lead doesn't amount to much given that it's still within the poll's margin of error. But the horse race numbers, along with the results of other questions asked in the poll, has his campaigin smiling. It's the first time in weeks that Obama has held such a lead. (See the full results and Post story here.)

Clinton is still seen as the more experienced Democrat, but caucus-goers surveyed in the poll say they are more interested in change: Fifty-five percent said a "new direction and new ideas" was their top priority, compared with 33 percent who said "strength and experience." Obama is also increasingly the second choice of Iowa voters, the Post reports. That's significant because any candidate who doesn't win 15 percent at a caucus is deemed inviable, and his or her supporters must choose another candidate or go home.

Iowa, which votes Jan. 3, is the only early caucus or primary state where Clinton has not held a significant lead in the polls, and she is stepping up her campaign there to try to fend off strong challenges from Obama, who has a massive Hawkeye State organization, and Edwards, who did well in the state in 2004. On the Democratic side, Iowa looks more and more like it will have an outsized voice in picking the nominee.

So he is showing some life, but I am still not sure what they key differences are between him and Hillary...I know Hillary is considered divisive to many, but politically - I still can't tell them apart. Richardson is a joke and not ready for prime time and I have seen him stumble on too many questions. Iowa will be interesting and I can see the Clinton campaign is panicking a little as their lead slipped a little in the polls.

livetotravel

Costa Rica is looking more attractive by the second

quijibo

i'm thinking europe. maybe barcelona

lilbangladesh

Oh come on! The key difference is that Obama didn't vote for the war.

He's just your basic moderate Democrat. The real key would be to see if he had the courage of his convictions once he's in office. I think he might be more Establishment than you think.

carnivore

He won my vote 3 years ago with this speech at the 2004 DNC:

Part 1


Part 2

lilbangladesh

One thing I can definitely say for him is that if he's elected president, we would actually have watchable and listenable presidential speeches. I was beginning to think that the political speech was a lost art. Hillary drones and Bush has been such an embarrassment for the past seven years, I have yet to sit through a speech of his. That, and the fact that every time he lies or is being condescending to a reporter (ever notice that he talks to them and us, the American people, like we're all third graders?) he juts out his chin aggressively. Ugh. I always have to shut it off.

With an intelligent and articulate person like Obama at the helm of our country, we would no longer be embarrassed on the world stage and we might (with reversal of key policies) gain the respect back that we've lost all those years under the Bush administration.

sevenoneeighty

lilbangladesh wrote: Oh come on! The key difference is that Obama didn't vote for the war.

Yea, but doesn't that just prove that he wasn't in the Senate...he wasn't THERE to vote was he? He didn't actually vote "no" either....he wasn't even a Senator until 2005....2 years ago. That is getting a little tired.

My 12 year old niece can make the same claim as Obama...she didn't vote FOR the war either. (she isn't qualified or experienced enough to be president, BTW)

I just think he has to do better at this point and distinguish himself by what he will do, not what he didn't do when he wasn't even a senator yet.

Otherwise, my niece will gain on him in the polls...

lilbangladesh

I thought he was already in office. They usually don't have people who aren't in office give keynote speeches at political conventions. In fact, I don't think that ever happens.

sevenoneeighty

Nope:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama#Senate_career

Obama was sworn in as a Senator on January 4, 2005.[51] In a move considered exceptional for a first-term incoming senator, he recruited Pete Rouse, a 30-year veteran of the Washington political scene and former chief of staff to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, as his chief of staff.[52] Karen Kornbluh, an economist who was deputy chief of staff to former Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, was hired as Obama's policy adviser.[53] Foreign policy advisers include Samantha Power, author on human rights and genocide, and former Clinton administration officials Anthony Lake and Susan Rice.[54] Obama holds assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs,[55] and is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.[56]

carnivore

Obama gave this speech on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally in Chicago. He may not have been in the Senate yet, but I think his position on Iraq was pretty damn clear.

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.